Skip to comments.Hunchback King Richard III infected with worms
Posted on 09/04/2013 8:34:02 AM PDT by Olog-hai
Not only was Richard III one of Englands most despised monarchs, but it now turns out the hunchback king was probably infected with parasitic worms that grew up to a foot in length.
Researchers who dug up Richard IIIs skeleton underneath a parking lot in Leicester last year now report they discovered numerous roundworm eggs in the soil around his pelvis, where his intestines would have been. They compared that to soil samples taken close to Richards skull and surrounding his grave. There were no eggs near the skull and only traces of eggs in the soil near the grave.
In a study published online Wednesday in the journal Lancet, experts say that suggests the eggs near the skeletons pelvis were from an infection during the kings life, even though its unlikely the worms did him any serious damage. In children, roundworm can lead to stunted growth and a reduced IQ, but for a well-fed English king, the parasites were just a minor annoyance.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Except when one sticks its head out your butt and asks
What's for supper???
Its OK I hear he liked fishing.
Those weren’t worms they were dragons!
"...all he has to do is put a bird down his throat"
Butt dragons or Butt Draggins?
Contrast to today where our “Kings” ARE parasites.
Richard is a bit maligned though no doubt a bad man
And likely did have his dear nephews killed in the Tower
And not his only crimes
I believe he was not actually a hunchback but suffered from scoliosis
Surprised AP would not distinguish
There is a defend Richard culture in the UK to refute some of Shakespeare’s descriptions and charges that were embellishment
>> Researchers who dug up Richard IIIs skeleton... discovered numerous roundworm eggs in the soil around his pelvis, where his intestines would have been. &etc
I thought about going into academia in my college days. I’m glad I picked industry instead. :-)
How times have changed. In England, only the King was infected with parasitic worms. Today, our entire nation is infected with them. If only we could be as lucky as England and have only our King with a similar affliction.
I think this is soooooo wron....digging up bodies. They and their descendants own where they lie.
Probably ate a cockenthrice that wasn’t quite cooked properly.
Of course, if Henry VII had killed them, it would have been very unwise indeed for Shakespeare to write a play about Henry VII's murder of the princes, even if he had known it to be true.
Elizabeth I would have had Shakespeare rendered to Richard Topcliffe to have his gonads removed.
IIRC Shakespeare based his play on the official Tudor version of history. This incorporated Bishop Morton's vicious polemic against the dead Richard III. We can't treat Shakespeare's play as impartial evidence.
From a character point of view: the actions of the two kings while in office speak volumes.
Richard III introduced the concept of bail; allowing men freedom from jail until proven guilty.
Henry VII on the other hand invented the star chamber (a system of secret trial!).
Just out of curiosity, how were Richard’s remains reburied? Was he reburied with any ceremony? After all, he was a King.
There is no evidence Richard killed his nephews. They did disappear from sight under his rule. Some people think they were escaped to Europe. Check out the Perkin Warbeck story. The children were declared illegitimate after it became clear that their father was a bigamist. No way would Richard (as protector of the realm) have allowed a “bastard” to assume the throne. That’s just the way medieval royal minds worked.
Richard instituted bail into England so that commoners would not lose their homes and farms while under arrest (usually arrested by corrupt nobles, btw). He was an outstanding soldier, well-liked by his troops, who stampeded Henry VII at Bosworth while that gentlemen hid behind a tree.
He deeply mourned the loss of his young boy and wife.
He had scoliosis - curvature of the spine; no hunchback. No withered arm, either.
Thomas More made all this stuff up because he grew up in the house of Thomas Morton - Richard’s mortal enemy.
Richard died in battle - the last English king to die in battle. He was killed by the soldiers of the usurper king, Henry VII (who did not fight - just hid behind his soldiers). When this kind of death took place, the body was put on display for several days to ensure the population knew that the king was dead. Richard, in very unusual fashion, was mutilated after death, displayed, and then thrown into a hastily-created ditch within a friary. We don’t know whether he had a Christian burial.
This was not really the digging up of a body. Richard’s remains were lost and thought to have been thrown into a river. But the Richard the Third Society tracked down where they thought he MIGHT be buried (actually, not buried but dumped) and lobbied the city of Leicester to allow them to dig so that he could be buried as an anointed king of England. The rest is grand history!
Richard was killed in the Battle of Bosworth in 1485. The victorious Tudors desecrated his body and tossed him in a ditch. I believe he was moved around a few times after death..
Thanks, but I was wondering how his remains were reburied.
His remains are currently undergoing study at the University of Leicester. Once they’ve concluded their studies, he will be reburied in a beautiful tomb in Leicester Cathedral. There is also a petition going around to have him buried in York. Richard’s home base was York.
Now are the innards of our discontent...
No, he was dumped in a hastily dug ditch within Grayfriars and he’s been there until last year.
I'll go out on a limb and guess that the parking lot wasn't there when they buried him ;-)
hey you never know, that could have been where they parked horses and carriages, 30 shillings a month.
does the 30 shillings cover the cost of a monthly wash-and-wax? They turn over the horses occasionally so that they’ll start?
ewwww thank you for telling me!!! (not!!)
I’ve read a bit on it too
I’m driving in jelly stone right now
But one noble whose name escapes me claimed he did it for III
note I made clear he didn’t do it personally
And that the bard was too hard on the poor fellow
He is oft maligned and now he’s accused of worms
He stood by Eddie too against that prick Neville
There is a great book, a work of fiction, by Sharon Kay Penman about Richard III. She has also written about Empress Maude, Henry II, and Richard I. She is an excellent researcher and posits in her book that Lord Bolingbrook? Burlington, maybe? Was responsible for the nephews demise
In the 1600’s, some refurbishing of the tower found two skeletons of boys. We don’t know if they are the nephews. I love British history!
Will it be a type of official or state funeral, military honors, etc.?
Sharon pinned the murder on Buckingham - a very common suspect. Two children’s bones were found in the 1600s and were exhumed in the 1930s. Impossible to tell the sex of the bones. There were also animal bones found. They are now in an urn in the Abbey. The Queen refuses to have them exhumed.
Whoops, and thanks ButThreeLeftsDo!
As often happens when I learn a little bit about some figure in English history, I am now wanting to learn more. In all honesty, my current perception of Richard III is mostly formed from Shakespeare’s treatment of him.
Considering that the events were as long ago as they are, and involve a monarch and a usurper of monarchy, in another country, I’ve often been surprised at the passion the topic can arouse. The facts emerged many years ago when the sole surviving copy of the Titulus Regius emerged, showing that Richard III was legally made king and the reason for it; simultaneously it showed why Henry VII had the rest of the copies destroyed and the “little princes” murdered, then married their sister and pinned the murder on his predecessor, who had absolutely zero motive.
The supposed remains of the little princes which were found during a renovation of The Tower (usually the account sez the bodies were found under some stairs, the truth is they were excavated while a foundation was being either laid or removed) probably were not the boys, although DNA testing might be just the thing needed. The measurements of the skeletons made in the early 20th century showed that the remains were too large for the boys if they had indeed died during the reign of Richard III. The identification was never rejected, and they were reinterred.
It’s clear that the bodies were somewhere, because Henry VII had the supposed murderer executed for the crime, after confessing that he’d done it on orders from Richard III — which was someone for whom he’d never worked. I really have to hand it to VIIth — he really knew how to pull it off. Naturally he has the unfailing support of all his successors, irrespective of their descent, because without him, not even one of them would likely have sat the throne. :’)
The REAL heir to the throne of England lives in Australia.
You might mean Buckingham, who then revolted against RIII and was executed for treason. I think he killed the illegitimate sons of Edward IV and was in cahoots with Henry VII’s mother Margaret Baufort.
He was NOT a hunchback!!! That portrait of him with a hunchback was doctered later by Tudor stoolpigeons to make him appear so. There is NO WAY a Medieval Warrior King like Richard III - who fought his OWN battles unlike that toad Henry Tudor - could wear the armor of the day and ride a horse with a lance in combat if he was deformed.
The Tudors STINK. Offspring of Owen Tudor, a Welsh Gigolo.
If you believe Joni Mitchell, it was formerly Paradise.
You’re thinking of Sir James Tyrell, who according to Henry VII, claimed to have murdered the children while under torture. But there was no signed confession and we only have Henry’s word to go on. And he was not noted for either his honesty or kindness.
Hope you’re having fun on vacation!
Try Paul Kendall’s book “Richard III” for a sympathetic bio and Annette Carson’s book “The Maligned King” for unbelievable details on the problems that fell on Richard’s shoulders once his brother, King Edward IV died, and left him protector of the realm. For a book that looks at Richard’s mistakes and so-called crimes (he offed a man called Hastings), read David Baldwin’s book. I think it’s called “Richard the Third.” Enjoy - it’s a wonderful story.
I thought he was straight.
Thank you for that information. Your conclusions seem quite logical.
I must say that I really had not given Richard III much thought until the discovery pf his remains. As I said, Shakespeare’s portrayal has been my main image of him over the years. And it has been many, many years since I read that.
Any recommendations on the book that tells the story?
Thank you so much for the reading recommendations.
Oops! The pile of yet-to-be read books will be growing once again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.